Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62011CN0646

Case C-646/11 P: Appeal brought on 16 December 2011 by 3F, formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 27 September 2011 in Case T-30/03 RENV: 3F formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) v European Commission

IO C 65, 3.3.2012, p. 6–6 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

3.3.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/6

Appeal brought on 16 December 2011 by 3F, formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 27 September 2011 in Case T-30/03 RENV: 3F formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) v European Commission

(Case C-646/11 P)

2012/C 65/11

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: 3F, formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) (represented by: P. Torbøl, advokat, V. Edwards)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—

Set aside the Judgment of the General Court in its entirety,

—

Give final judgment on the matter,

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

—

The General Court erred in law in its interpretation and application of the case-law related to the assessment of the length of a preliminary examination under Article 108(3) TFEU.

—

The General Court erred in law in its interpretation and application of the case-law on the meaning of ‘serious difficulties’ and the determination of whether such difficulties exist.

—

The General Court erred in law by failing to respond to the Appellant's plea relating to infringement of the principle of good administration; in the alternative the General Court erred in law by incorrectly interpreting and applying the case-law on the principle of good administration.
Top